Wellington Independent TUESDAY, AUGUST 8, 1871.

Wellington Independent, Volume XXVI, Issue 3272, 8 August 1871, Page 2

Wellington Independent TUESDAY, AUGUST 8, 1871.

< ; No case, abuse the counsel opposite," seems now the last resort of the professed opposition journals. The " Nelson Examiner," in following tactics so congenial, is facile princeps. Its case was to show that the legislation connected with the name of Mr Fox, such as the Land Transfer Bill, is unworkable ; that the administration of Mr Gisborne is weak and inconsistent; that the postal and financial proposals of Mr Yogel are absurd and chimerical ; and that the native administration of Mr M'Lean is an utter failure. The facts and the evidence, however, are all on the other side. The Land Transfer Bill has been successful beyond the experience of any other colony ; the administration of Mr Gisborne has admittedly thrown that of Mr Stafford into the shade ; the postal and financial proposals of Mr Yogel have been accepted by the " astute Americans" and the " cautious capitalists ;" and the success of the native administration of Mr M'Lean is every day receiving fresh illustration. What then is left for it but abuse ? And what kind of abuse so natural to the writers of articles distinguished by laborious trifling, and an almost infantile simplicity of thought and obscurity of style as that of calling names ? Accordingly Mr Fox is called Chadband ; VI r Gisborne "that Heathen Chinee;" Mr Vogel — but we will not disgrace our columns with any more quotations from their vocabulary of abuse. It is really too bad of the pertinacious " Colonist" to begrudge them this consolation (for it really seems to make these writers happy !') The " Colonist" has fairly beaten them in argument ; it can afford to yield them the palm in (vituperative) rhetoric ! It has got common sense on its side — why envy them any little advantage they gain by violating common decency? The " Colonist," in its defence of the Government, has, however, laid itself open to the charge made against the Wellington Independent. That charge is, that we have given an unwavering support to the Fox ministry, and defended them per fas aid nefas against all assailants. Never was any charge more groundless. We have defended Ministers, it is true, from gross calumnies, and we would, indeed, have been unworthy representatives of the fourth csta'.e had we done less. When, for instance, it w s reported by telegram, and made the subject of frantic leaders, that the Defence Minister hud been guilty of a breach of the law in giving powder surreptitiously to natives, we simply made such enquiries as those who profess to guide public opinion ought to make before accusing any one publicly of a most flagitious crime. Tho sources of our information were equally accessible to the accusing journals, but as they were not so anxious to ascertain facts as to circulate damaging they did not put themselves to the trouble of any such investigation. We hesitate not to say that if the Hon. Donald M'Lean had done what they accused him of, had broken the very law ho had himself passed, wo would have urged his being hanged as high as Darn an ! Again, when Mr Gisborne was accused of stealing a telegram, and giving it to us, when we received nothing in addition to the 100 word telegram, which we acknowledged, and which, by tho way, was obtainable by any journalistic applicant ; were we silently to lie under the imputation of being " receivers," with our own paid property spread out before us? Had Mr Gisborne clone what his calumniators asserted we would have urged a far greater penalty than the fiercest of them ever suggested. In the same way we might fill columns with the misrepresentations utteied of other members of tho Government, and show how our silence when the means of refutation were at our hand, would have been a treason to the colony and a disgrace to journalism. It is sad, and we deeply lament it, that so much of our space during the long recess now drawing to a close should have been so occupied. But the blame lies with those who circulated these calumnious charges. We also during the general election did most certainly defend the Government from much

misrepresentation not of a personal character. When Mr Bichmond, for instance, tried to show that on certain subjects the Ministers were not cordially agreed, we insisted on his naming one, and got for answer " the Permissive Bill !'* It was then our part to show that the late Ministry were " a bundle of weak wills"— that they differed toio coclo on questions MrEichmond deemed most vital, such as free trade and protection, and that that ardent believer in free trade, which by C( the laws of political economy" is demonstrable with all the " infallibility of a mathematical proposition to be essential to the progress of exevy country," consented to sit for years side by side with the protectionist Hall, and to pass the most protective measure to be found in the statute-book of New Zealand— giving a protection far beyond anything dreamt of by the present Government. In the same way, when this ex-Native Minister sneered at his successor, we brought to bear upon him the stern logic°of facts. We pointed out Cobb's coach running and settlement advancing throughout districts by him fatuously abandoned to murderous savages, and we contrasted the expenditure on powder with that on roadmaking, and their respective results. We have frequently taken occasion to defend not so much the Ministers as the colony from absurd charges as to governmental expenditure, and shown beyond the possibility of a doubt that our public departments will compare with those of any other country in point of economy and efficiency. We have taken frequent occasion to protest against the disparagement of the character of our public men and of our material re sources as a suicidal folly, and urged the more wise and patriotic course of regarding the reputation of those who are called by the voice of the supreme legislature to high offices in the state as dear to every colonist, and of viewing the resources of the colony as a common patrimony not to be lightly despised, in the development of which we require foreign capital which must necessarily be injuriously affected by depreciation of the securities on which it is raised. We have earnestly advocated more faith in our public men, more faith in our resources, and more faith in the future of our adopted country. We have urged our fellow colonists to hope, and courage, and exertion. We humbly think we have been better engaged in so doing than by circulating reports impugning the honor of his Excellency's advisers, calculated to bring the Government of New Zealand into disesteem, or by disparaging the resources, and despairing of the peace of the colony, doing our utmost to injure its credit in the money market of the world. We trust we shall never esteem it a part of our duty, or rely upon it as an easy way of attaining popularity, to systematically traduce the Ministry of the day, or to try to shake all confidence in the purity of their administration, We hope we shall always be able to determine what are matters fit for public comment, and if baffled by fair argument or invincible facts, we shall never resort, in our impotent rage, to nicknames, or descend so low as to accuse our opponents of stealing, to comment upon their personal " appearance," or their want of " family," or to invade the sanctity of their private life. It will be far more convincing to point to any jobbery, corruption, or maladministration on the part of the Government that we have defended, than to make a sweeping general assertion, unsupported by proof, that we support them right or wrong.